I had a long conversation with
calorath the other day about Spore, and EA's inclusion of a particularly draconian and hideous DRM scheme, SecuROM. In short, like Mass Effect before it, a part of Spore's DRM scheme is that the game requires activation with EA - after 3 installations and activations, the game is deactivated until you call EA and request an additional activation - which, undoubtedly, they need not grant (ahem, EULA). In effect, once you hit that limit of three, you are required to prove that you are not a pirate. Biting the hand that feeds you, are you, EA?
In the course of our conversation, one of the statements that came up was that "piracy isn't going to affect EA's bottom line." Well, according to a P2P research firm, some people are choosing to make a statement of not buying Spore and pirating it to avoid the DRM...
EA's "Spore" Pirated 170,000 Times Over Bittorrent Protocol [forbes.com]
"DRM can encourage the best customers to behave slightly better. It will never address the masses of non-customers downloading your product."
-Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock
I beg to differ, Mr. Wardell. As evidenced by a reply to one of the numerous Spore torrents, and also in the Forbes article, I am in complete agreement with this fellow pirate, and I will not be purchasing Spore for the same reason:
"I feel bad about pirating this game. I really wanted to buy it but EA put DRM on it and my policy is that any form of DRM means an instant not parting with money. When I pay for something I want to own it not rent it with EA deciding when I'm not allowed to play it anymore."
-User 'dsmx'
The question is, DOES that affect EA's bottom line? I don't know the full figures... but at $50 a pop, does $8.5 million sound like a lot to you?